Nible v. Knowles, et al.

Filing 64

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 60 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 08/30/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

WILLIAM NIBLE,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01716-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. 60)

v.
M. KNOWLES, et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff William Nible (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed July 21, 2009, against Defendant E. Flores for

19

violation of the First Amendment. On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his

20

complaint. Doc. 60. On August 8, 2011, Defendant filed his opposition. Doc. 62. The matter is

21

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

22

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant E. Flores Plaintiff moves to amend his pleadings to

23

include allegations for his entire period of incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison, from the

24

alleged events in 2006 to the present. Defendant opposes the motion.

25

On September 9, 2010, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court

26

set March 9, 2011 as the deadline to amend the pleadings . Doc. 45. Plaintiff is effectively

27

seeking to modify the discovery and scheduling order. The decision to modify a scheduling order

28

is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
1

1

F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir.

2

1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a pretrial scheduling order “shall not be

3

modified except upon a showing of good cause,” and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4);

4

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although “the existence

5

or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to

6

deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

7

modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his
pleadings was filed four months after the deadline.1 Plaintiff has not presented good cause to
modify the Court’s schedule.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed
July 21, 2011, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

August 30, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Based on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Plaintiff was under the misconception that
because his action was ongoing, it automatically encompassed events that occurred after the
events plead. As explained in the Court’s June 1, 2011 order, Plaintiff is incorrect. Doc. 54.
2